Mazor

This is an action to recover wages for labor performed. Defendants appeal from the judgment and from an order denying their motion for a new trial.

There was sufficient evidence to prove the allegation that the plaintiff performed the work in question at the request of the defendant Mary Springer. The plaintiff testifies positively to that effect, and he was corroborated by the witness Gilman. The answer does not deny the request so far as the defendant Sage is concerned. The plaintiff also testified, in effect, that the agreement was that he was to receive $15 for the first month and $25 per month thereafter, and *195 that he worked the entire time for which he claims, except seventeen days. This was sufficient to support the verdict. We cannot say, from the evidence, that the jury did not deduct the wages for the time he was absent, nor can we disturb the verdict, where the evidence is conflicting, although the preponderance may now seem to be for the defendants.

The court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial on the ground of surprise at the testimony of Gilman concerning the contract made in his presence between the plaintiff and the defendant Springer, and of…